Critique my (first) CMx2 map

[JonS]

"it depends"

You really need to play around with different settings, and see what looks good to you. You can also open up maps that you like in the editor and see how the designer did it.

There's also the tactical effects to consider - movement, LOS and cover are all affected by the number of trees/bushes, so that should probably be given at least some consideration.

But as a general rule; yeah, I use 2 or 3 bushes per tile because 1 is too sparse. Except when I don't, because 2 or 3 looks* too dense

Jon

* particularly next to roads because the bushes creep up too close to the road, or in the 'corners' of crop fields because the bushes overflow the edge of the crop area. But in wild settings or along hedgerows/hedges it's almost always 2 or 3

[Pete Wenman]

Another question: beneath the trees and bushes, you can select one, two or three trees/bushes. If I understood him correctly, SeinfeldRules suggests only using one tree per tile. What is the consensus about using the "three tree" option vs Lt Forest or Hvy Forest?

Also, from my very limited experience, using one bush leaves them very thin on the ground, should "three bushes" be the default?

You're into the territory of making your own rules here. What ever you think is best. Some suggest that three trees per tile is too many and can cause lag on some systems, but it's not really an issue I've seen.

I tend to use type D is threes, A and C in two's or one per tile, and only place one tree per tile when adjoining a road or track regardless of type.

I only use one bush per tile when representing a crop as mentioned by Jon above, otherwise pretty much use 2 or 3 when used as woodland.

These are my "rules" and I break them when I feel like, but otherwise it gives some guidance to how I make a map, and process which allows me to make them more quickly than if I have to make a decision for every tile.

But at the end of the day anything goes, provided you like the end result.

I sent this to a guy yesterday by email when we were discussing this subject

As for tips I guess I'd break them down into two areas.

Map making

I tend to place contour lines, roads, and water (as it effects where contours can go ) on map first.

I then use the second brush size to outline major ground types. - In otherwords I outline all woodland areas, and larger crop areas if present so that I start to get an overview of the entire map.

These outlined areas can then be filled in relatively quickly

I also tend to place buildings at this stage, not worrying about detail, but just to get something on map. I usually use one of the mid size modular buildings for this, and then go back and tweak them in terms of size, facing and height as I detail the map.

Don't obsess over accuracy as the game will impose restrictions anyway. North does not have to be north etc.

For a map this large I would normally have 1k grids marked on the editor overlay, so that once I've filled a grid square I can get a sense of achievement and measurable progress. It's always downhill once the 50% complete mark his passed.

Style

I like to think of map making as more art than science given I'm a bit arty myself,( http://www.navairart.com/ ) so consider their look as important as their playability. Others are less concerned about the look, and more about how they play. No right or wrong, just what you enjoy.

I would seek out maps from those designers whose work you like and look at what they do in the editor. As an example I don't create solid woodland, rather have grass, weed and flower tiles within a wooded area. This makes the process more time consuming as it prevents the use of the bigger brush tools, but I like the end effect.

Keep in touch and feel free to ask any questions you might have.

Between you me and the gatepost I'm currently working on a 5k x 2k map for black sea, and am liking the way it is shaping up. Like you I'm using a combination of a 1:50k map (for the contours) and google earth images (for all other details) for the editor overlay.

P

[sburke]

You're into the territory of making your own rules here. What ever you think is best. Some suggest that three trees per tile is too many and can cause lag on some systems, but it's not really an issue I've seen.

I tend to use type D is threes, A and C in two's or one per tile, and only place one tree per tile when adjoining a road or track regardless of type.

I only use one bush per tile when representing a crop as mentioned by Jon above, otherwise pretty much use 2 or 3 when used as woodland.

These are my "rules" and I break them when I feel like, but otherwise it gives some guidance to how I make a map, and process which allows me to make them more quickly than if I have to make a decision for every tile.

But at the end of the day anything goes, provided you like the end result.

P

Absolutely - there are no "rules" about tress, forests and density. It is a metter of what you are trying to portray. i tend to mix 2 and 3 trees per tile in woords to give variation and throw in tiles with bushes for clearings etc. Forests are messy, they should look it unless it is actually a planted forest like some in Huertgen were for example

And I am with you on this, the number of trees per tile hasn't seemed to make any lag difference in my machine (s).

[Aragorn2002]

What kind of impact does tree density have upon the movement of tanks? I'm working on a remake of an HSG scenario (with the blessing of the original designer) in which the tanks should be able to withdraw through an orchard.

[SeinfeldRules]

I probably shouldn't have made my comment sound so definitive, 2 and 3 trees per tile have their place. Usually when I use it, I'll have 2 x Type D per tile, and then 1 x Type A and C for the rest of the forest. But generally I absolutely hate how it looks, especially when a forest consists entirely of that one tree type. I see it as a result of using the same techniques of map making from CMx1 in CMx2. A single 20x20 block of forest tile in CMx1 is now a 3x3 set of tiles with lots of variation.

[sburke]

What kind of impact does tree density have upon the movement of tanks? I'm working on a remake of an HSG scenario (with the blessing of the original designer) in which the tanks should be able to withdraw through an orchard.

They do slow down when impacting, the more there are the slower I would think they'd go. That is about the only drawback as far as I know.

[A Canadian Cat]

I use A, C, or D. I usually drop out the occasional tree, replace the occasional tree with an orchard-ised bush, and put the occasional tree 'off grid' to reduce the robotic appearance of orchards.

You can also mix up the spacing to give visual (and some tactical) variety:

x . x . x . x . x

. x . x . x . x .

x . x . x . x . x

x . x . x . x . x

x . x . x . x . x

x . x . x . x . x

x . x . x . x . x

. . . . . . . . . . .

x . x . x . x . x

. . . . . . . . . . .

x . x . x . x . x

x . . x . . x . . x . . x

. x . . x . . x . . x . .

. . x . . x . . x . . x .

etc

Totally cool suggestions for orchards. I always played it straight in the past - but not after this.

[sburke]

I probably shouldn't have made my comment sound so definitive, 2 and 3 trees per tile have their place. Usually when I use it, I'll have 2 x Type D per tile, and then 1 x Type A and C for the rest of the forest. But generally I absolutely hate how it looks, especially when a forest consists entirely of that one tree type. I see it as a result of using the same techniques of map making from CMx1 in CMx2. A single 20x20 block of forest tile in CMx1 is now a 3x3 set of tiles with lots of variation.

Definitely prefer variations in forests. Using one type gives it more of an artificial feel. What you said!

[bobo]

76mm,

I loaded your map and SeinfeldRules version. I definitely thought yours was "CMx1"-ish. I like SR's better. Not much help there but you are getting lots of help in this thread from mapmakers which is great.

Keep on making maps.

Bobo

[JonS]

One more tip:

when you're using fences/walls/hedges, give serious consideration to NOT using the '+', 'X' and 'T' pieces. They're hella tempting because they're so useful, but they really screw with infantry and vehicle movement.

[76mm]

One more tip:

when you're using fences/walls/hedges, give serious consideration to NOT using the '+', 'X' and 'T' pieces. They're hella tempting because they're so useful, but they really screw with infantry and vehicle movement.

Sorry, you lost me here--could you elaborate? How do they screw with movement, and what to use in place of them??

[76mm]

76mm,

I loaded your map and SeinfeldRules version. I definitely thought yours was "CMx1"-ish.

Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)

[JonS]

Sorry, you lost me here--could you elaborate? How do they screw with movement, and what to use in place of them??

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1457340&postcount=239

[76mm]

Ooops, hadn't read that far in your tutorial yet...

[BletchleyGeek]

Yeah size is a factor, but it's mainly complexity, really. A 1x1km open rural map with a patch of woods and a small village might take you ... mmm ... two weeks, working 1-2 hours per night, 5-6 nights a week? On the other hand, a 1x1km city or urban map could take ... 6-8 weeks?

That's a remarkably accurate estimate. Indeed, as one internalizes how things actually look in 3D - and the muscle memory for CMx2 editor hotkeys is developed, times go down accordingly.

Something that also worked for me to speed up map making was to spend some time "prepping" the overlays for different purposes. For instance, having one overlay for the contours and another one for the vegetation. I have used Command Ops Map Maker to great effect by 1) tracing the contours manually with it and 2) taking a screenshot of the map to use as an overlay for Combat Mission.

[JonS]

Hi Bletch,

I agree about creating several overlays, and i think it helps in a number of different ways.

As you note, some images are better for some purposes than others. For example, the French Geoportail topo maps are great for contours and gross geographical details – like rivers – but they’re a bit problematic for buildings and fields because land use has changed a LOT since 1944. On the other hand, the Geoportail aerial photos from the 1940s and 1950s are great for land use, but hopeless for plotting contours.

Secondly, by spending a bit of time hunting out images, lining them up, and preparing overlays I find I get a much better appreciation and familiarity with the finer details of an area, before trying to recreate it in CM. That makes making the map easier, and it also has a direct flow on to general overall scenario design too. I find it helps with programming the AI, since I have a better idea of movement corridors and key terrain, and it also helps with identifying good locations for fighting positions, objectives, and whatnot.

So, yeah; even if I don’t end up using all the overlays that get prepared, the time spent on them isn’t wasted. (I guess this is another example of that old adage about time spent on recce.)

Jon.

[76mm]

Sorry, another map question:

How do you place rubbled buildings and damaged modular buildings? I saw that you can put damage on independent buildings with Control-Left Click, but:

--this only seemed to cycle through light and moderate damage, no rubble;

--doing this for modular buildings just seems to spin them rather than place damage.

[76mm]

Never mind, I found the answer (again) in JonS' tutorial...

[Aragorn2002]

I must say that the objectives part of the editor is still a mystery to me. I've tried to assign an objective to a certain unit, had second thoughts about it (the unit arrived out of nowhere right on the target area), removed the terrain objectives, but still the unit jumps the removed objective area as soon as I start the game. I've read the tutorial and stuff, but I just don't get it. If anyone would like to advise, please do.

[A Canadian Cat]

I must say that the objectives part of the editor is still a mystery to me. I've tried to assign an objective to a certain unit, had second thoughts about it (the unit arrived out of nowhere right on the target area), removed the terrain objectives, but still the unit jumps the removed objective area as soon as I start the game. I've read the tutorial and stuff, but I just don't get it. If anyone would like to advise, please do.

I am not sure what you are describing here. It sounds like you are saying you wanted to say that a specific unit must occupy a specific terrain objective. If that is so: you cannot do that.

The way you describe units jumping around it sounds like setup / deployment is causing confusion. On the unit selection page you can click on a deploy command on the left hand side. From there you can setup your chosen units however you like. That setup becomes the default. But when you switch over to the AI programming you can override that default setup. If you provide setup areas for your AI plan this will override the unit's initial deployment. If you do not provide setup areas in the AI plan those units will use the default.

And here is where things get a big strange (although it is explainable): If you have units with AI plan setup areas and you start the game in Scenario Design mode when you initially place your units you will see the AI controlled units in their default deployed locations. Then when you hit the BRB those same units will jump to their AI setup areas. Surprise! But you only see that when in scenario design mode. Normal players never see that. The reason, I believe, is that there could be multiple AI plans and initially the plan that is going to be used has not been chosen yet so you see the default deployment locations. Then when you press the BRB the plan is chosen and the units' deployed locations are changed as needed.

But again I am only guessing with the above because it is not clear to me what you are trying to do. Please clarify if what I described does not help.

[Aragorn2002]

Ian, thank you for explaining and yes, I did try to say to a specific unit to occupy a specific terrain objective. Okay, so that is not possible. And you are right, I did make another mistake by allowing the AI to overrule the default setup.

So it is not possible to make all of the three platoons of a company chose another terrain target and it is not possible to plan exactly their advance towards seperate terrain objectives via several 'sub' terrain targets?

[A Canadian Cat]

Ian, thank you for explaining and yes, I did try to say to a specific unit to occupy a specific terrain objective. Okay, so that is not possible. And you are right, I did make another mistake by allowing the AI to overrule the default setup.

Yeah having units jump around during setup was confusing when I first saw it. The second scenario I made I did not do any real initial deployment but used the AI setup orders to set things up. The first time I play tested I must have stopped and started five or six times before I let the game go forward and I realized that those first AI troop positions I was seeing did not really count.

So it is not possible to make all of the three platoons of a company chose another terrain target and it is not possible to plan exactly their advance towards seperate terrain objectives via several 'sub' terrain targets?

I am not sure what you mean by "terrain target". The way the AI plan works is you divide up your forces into groups (each platoon of your company could be a group or the whole company could be in one group) then you give each AI group a set of orders. Those orders include a destination (which you paint on the map) and time window for the group to execute the next order (i.e. how long they will stay in the current area before they move on to the next one.

Using this series of orders for an AI group you can plan the advance to various terrain objectives over the route you want and in the older you want.

Have you read @JonS's thread on designing a scenario? Check it out here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110294 it is extreemly helpful.

[Aragorn2002]

Ian. No, not yet, well, I've read parts of it, but not everything. But I'm going to.

Thanks again for the explanation. It helps a lot.

[Aragorn2002]

I'm glad to see the DAR/AAR is added to the CMBN pack download. A lot easier to read this way. Nice bonus.